CEDAW/C/55/D/35/2011 raped. She also replied in the negative to a question as to whether the rape related to her membership of FNL. 30 Consequently, the State party’s authorities clearly had no opportunity to consider her gender-based allegations, which are at the heart of her communication before the Committee, and were therefore deprived of the opportunity to examine such claims. Accordingly, the Committee finds the present communication inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 Having found the communication inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee need not, in principle, examine the additional inadmissibility grounds invoked by the State party. The Committee wishes, nonetheless, to address the issue of State parties’ responsibilities under the Convention in situations in which a State party extradites, deports, expels or otherwise removes an individual to a country where he or she claims that he or she would suffer a violation of his or her rights under the Convention. In connection with the present communication, the State party disputes the applicability of the Convention in such circumstances. 8.5 Under article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, “communications may be submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, under the jurisdiction of a State party, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention by that State party”. The Committee recalls that it indicated in its general recommendation No. 28 that the obligations of States parties applied without discrimination both to citizens and non-citizens, including refugees, asylum seekers, migrant workers and stateless persons, within their territory or effective control, even if not situated within the territory. States parties are “responsible for all their actions affecting human rights, regardless of whether the affected persons are in their territories”. 31 8.6 The Committee recalls that article 1 of the Convention defines discrimination against women as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women … of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”. The Committee further recalls its general recommendation No. 19, which has clearly placed violence against women within the ambit of discrimination against women by stating that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination against women and includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty. With regard to the State party’s argument that, unlike other human rights treaties, the Convention does not deal, directly or indirectly, with removal to torture or other serious threats to the life and security of a person, the Committee recalls that, in the same recommendation, it also determined that such gender-based violence impaired or nullified the enjoyment by women of a number of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which included the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security of the person and the right to equal protection under the law. 8.7 The Committee further notes that, under international human rights law, the principle of non-refoulement imposes a duty on States to refrain from returning a __________________ 30 31 13-43086 Report of the author’s second interview, dated 14 April 2011. General recommendation No. 28, on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, para. 12. 13/20